Weird V8 Points Totals?

[Dazz]

Just having a look through the points table, and thought it would be interesting to keep a running points table with the worst round dropped, becasue that is effectively the proper points standings. Results below.

Craig Lowndes 192
Mark Skaife 189
Jason Bright 186
Steven Richards 180
Greg Murphy 180
Garth Tander 174
Todd Kelly 168
Paul Weel 150
Paul Radisich 150
Glenn Seton 144
Paul Dumbrell 141
Russell Ingall 138
Rick Kelly 132
Simon Wills 123
Paul Morris 120
Marcos Ambrose 117
Greg Ritter 114
Brad Jones 108
Steven Johnson 105
Max Wilson 102
Jason Bargwanna 96
Craig Baird 93
Cam McConville 87
Mark Larkham 81
Jamie Whincup 81
Steve Ellery 78
John Bowe 72
Rodney Forbes 60
Mark Noske 57
Anthony Tratt 54
Dean Canto 54
Jason Richards 30
David Besnard 24
Paul Romano 0
David Thexton 0

What is weird though, was that all rounds were supposed to be worth the same points. So how come Lowndes gets 192 for his win at Phillip Island and Skaife gets only 189 at Adelaide? Seems a bit unfair if the points change for each round.

Is it becasue AVESCO allocate 3 points for last place and simply add 3 points for each place above that? Becasue if the amount of cars racing changes then the points for winning will change too.

Does anyone else thik that this needs looking into or is it just me :confused:

[RaceTime]

Quite simple really - at Adelaide, Skaife got a 2nd and 1st - and, as they split the available points at each round amongst all the races, he only picked up 93 and 96, not 96 and 96 (Ambrose picked up 1st position points of 96 in race 1).

[MattV]

The reason for the difference is becuase in Adelaide it was 2 races, in P.I just one.

It is 192 points for the round

therefore in a one race round 192 for the winner

in a two race round 96 points for each race winner (total 192 for the round)

in a three race round (w.a) 64 points for each race winner (total 192 for the round)

In adelaide Skaife won race two (96 points and finished second in race one (93 points) - total 189.

Cheers
MattV

[Dazz]

Ah yes of course, damn this flu it's making me silly-er!

[Crash Test]

Basically speaking, Adelaide had nowhere near the importance it would normally have- both races were 1/2 points races.

[Champ69]

I think the scoring system is a joke so I am using F1 scoring systems

Bright - 12.5
Skaife - 12
Lowndes - 11
S.Richards - 8.5
T,Kelly - 8
Murphy - 6
Ambrose - 5
Tander - 5
Weel - 4
Rat 2.5

An Adelaide race win was 5
Johnson - 2
Ingall - 1
McConville - 0.5
Dumbrell - 0.5

HRT - 20
Brock - 16.5
Prodrive - 11
Castrol Racing - 9
SBR - 6
K-Mart - 6
Valvoline CR - 5
Betta Elect - 2.5
DJR - 1.5
LSR - 0.5

[RaceTime]

Ummm if you are using F1 system, HTH are you getting half points?

Like it or not, Adelaide was two races and no race has yet been stopped and awarded oinly half points.

[Champ69]

PI was one race so
1st - 10
2nd - 8
3rd - 6
4th - 5
5th - 4
6th - 3
7th - 2
8th - 1

Adelaide
Race1 Race 2 Total round
1st - 5 5 10
2nd - 4 4 8
3rd - 3 3 6
4th - 2.5 2.5 5
5th - 2 2 4
6th = 1.5 1.5 3
7th - 1 1 2
8th - 0.5 0.5 1

[jetsetter]

How confusing is it going to be keeping up with the championship this year with drivers dropping their worst round, i thought they were going to make the pointscore less complicated this year.

[Champ69]

Way to confusing, thats why I decided to keep my own tabs on how the teams are going.

[RaceTime]

And you are making even more confusing by counting points across a round instead of each race - which if you look at it logically is a separate entity - therefore allocate full points on each race and leave it at that - none of the BS half point business.

[mjt57]

It's my dream to see the V8 Series have a standard scoring system for all races and rounds. ie: 25 for 1st, down to 1 for 15th. Those who DNF well, tough. Try better next time.

And no "double points" for longer rounds. Dunno what the point of that is. It can disadvantage a driver severely if he fails to finish at say, PI. Imagine if Skaife and Lowndes are on, oh, 400 pts (forget the maths for the minute). Rd 4 is double points. They're dicing, and one of them is "enforced" out of the race. Instantly, he's at least 190 pts behind his competitor. Hard to make that up. Impossible, in fact, if the other guy has no DNFs or if he DNFs at a "half points" meeting.

And speaking of DNFs, I just read through some of the rules for this season. If a driver DNFs after completing more than 50% of the race, he will still be awarded points.

I assume that the DNF'ers are awarded appropriate points based on who DNF'ed first, etc.?

Ah. Socialism in a sport that is obsessed with money.

[Champ69]

Originally posted by RaceTime
And you are making even more confusing by counting points across a round instead of each race - which if you look at it logically is a separate entity - therefore allocate full points on each race and leave it at that - none of the BS half point business.

I think it is rather simple actually - and with 13 rounds if one person won every race they would only have 130 points not 3,000 or so under the current system. It will be interesting to see how the standings will look when comparing my system to that of the Current V8 system at the end of the year.

[RaceTime]

Suit yourself - introducing any system that allocates half points shows the use of half a brain though IMO.

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by mjt57
And no "double points" for longer rounds. Dunno what the point of that is. It can disadvantage a driver severely if he fails to finish at say, PI. Imagine if Skaife and Lowndes are on, oh, 400 pts (forget the maths for the minute). Rd 4 is double points. They're dicing, and one of them is "enforced" out of the race. Instantly, he's at least 190 pts behind his competitor. Hard to make that up. Impossible, in fact, if the other guy has no DNFs or if he DNFs at a "half points" meeting.

And speaking of DNFs, I just read through some of the rules for this season. If a driver DNFs after completing more than 50% of the race, he will still be awarded points.

I assume that the DNF'ers are awarded appropriate points based on who DNF'ed first, etc.?

Ah. Socialism in a sport that is obsessed with money.

Yes - the business about DNF's being awarded pointsgoes against all the rules the FIA has run to over the years....but this *is* AVESCO...

The one thing I haven't read about is point allocations for dual-driver races - I am assuming (hah!) that both drivers get the same points or are they shared?

[Champ69]

I do not beleive I am going to get into a disagreement over the subject of my own scoring system that I introduced do to the fact the AVESCO's scoring system is stupid.

The way that I do my scoring is that each round is worth the same amount of points that is 10 for 1st place and 8th place gets 1 point.

It becomes simple in the fact that a race like PI the winner walks away with 10 points and everyone is happy.

The complexity of all systems comes from the fact that we can have more that one race per round. What I have done to resolve this issue is take the points for a position (lets say 1st place)and divide it by the races held in that particular round. So in PI's case a race win was 5points.

This means that no round is more important than another round- imagine the F1 system being allocated to each race with the result being that if you won both races at Adelaide you leave with 20points and the winner of Bathurst gets 10 points. Why is Adelaide worth more rounds???